Bruce70 Posted June 11, 2003 Share Posted June 11, 2003 a) Are tank turn rates way too slow? What information was used to determine appropriate turn rates? [i think this has been discussed before but I don't know what the final concensus was and searching the forum is rarely productive since no-one uses sensible thread titles. So if someone could just sum up what was said before I'd be very grateful] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted June 11, 2003 Share Posted June 11, 2003 Well, for starters the cannonical Tiger turn footage on history channel shows the real Tiger turning much faster than the CMBB one. Reminds me I need to make mpegs from that for you guys. The matter is complicated by the fact that CM does not model whether a vehicle could turn in place by having its tracks run against each other and it even treats tracks and wheeled vehicls the same. It abstracts "whatever maneuver is neede to face another direct and takes place with 15 meters or" into what is shown as turn in place. In addition, CMBB turn rates are effected by ground conditions the same way as movement is, which I think is not correct. Turning is much more dependent on the vehicle construction and less on ground conditions compared to movement (where you encounter a new piece of ground all the time). Personally I would like to see any video footage of a vehicle turning in combat to face a threat which is as slow as the CM counterpart. As I don't have TV I don't get much video shootage. But I certainly see all kinds of tracked construction vehicles turn faster than CMBB tanks, while doing relaxed work, not combat. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
demoss Posted June 11, 2003 Share Posted June 11, 2003 You want to see something truly appalling, try turning an assault boat around. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PiggDogg Posted June 12, 2003 Share Posted June 12, 2003 Guys, I am no grog, and I have no historical or factual basis for my opinion. However, AFVs in BB seem to turn in place waaaaay too slowly. Cheers, Richard 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted June 12, 2003 Share Posted June 12, 2003 Originally posted by PiggDogg: [snips] I am no grog, and I have no historical or factual basis for my opinion. However, AFVs in BB seem to turn in place waaaaay too slowly. I agree, but I think that the problem of towed guns traversing far too slowly creates bigger distortions in play. All the best, John. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadgerDog Posted June 12, 2003 Share Posted June 12, 2003 FYI........ Old thread - Why are tanks turning so slow? Originally posted by flamingknives: Many WWII era tanks could not neutral steer, that is run both tracks in opposite directions. Instead, they braked one track whilst running the other - this slows things down quite a bit. The Tiger (PzKw VI) is notable as being the first that could. Originally posted by MikeyD: I've found 'move-and-turn' instead of 'pivot-in-place' goes more smoothly. Originally posted by redwolf: Mattias, it is not a bug. On turns in fast speed the TacAI automatically rewrites the movement path to have more radius. So you end up with different waypoints that you plotted. Originally posted by BadgerDog: These are good observations. The Sherman (M4A2E8) had no "pivot turn" or as some call it "neutral turn" capability. As a Sherman driver, I'd have to perform a move forward followed by a hard tiller bar action (left or right) to get her to turn. It wasn't a turn in place, but rather an actual turn while moving forward or backward, so there was always a displacement of the position you were in to get the Sherman pointed in a different direction. It was very slow if all the Crew Commander wanted me to do was turn 90 degrees, but stay in the same spot as a fire position. It was a damn pain in the A&& to have to rock forward and backward over at least a minute or more, just to get the bow around. When moving at high speeds and cranking the tiller bar for a hard left or right, it was much faster, but the turn radius was wide and often there was an overshoot, which really ticked off some Crew Commanders because frequently he'd end up in a fire position that wasn't what he wanted. So, he'd have to get the driver to start "jockeying" (see above stationary turn) into the correct facing position. Don't know of this helps, but I do find CMBB's turning code pretty close to real life.Regards, Badger 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted June 12, 2003 Share Posted June 12, 2003 I had missed the Sherman E8 observations first time around, very interesting stuff. I do believe (only seat-of-the-pants feel) that a few vehicles in v1.03 have had their pivot rates increased... slightly. Still, there's a strong incentive to move-and-turn instead of pivot. The LAST thing you want to do in the game (and I suspect in real life too) is give a pivot command to a German half-track! Like trying to dock an ocean liner! Jeez, what a pain. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Havermeyer- Posted June 12, 2003 Share Posted June 12, 2003 Yes the HT rotate is excruciating. I haven't done it enough to remember how much it sucks until I'm watching the movie and see the dangnable thing has only turned 10 degrees or some such in 60s. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Roxanne Posted June 12, 2003 Share Posted June 12, 2003 I avoid all but the smallest pivots whenever possible. I think you're better off plotting a few more waypoints in order to approach your desired destination already facing in the desired direction. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malakovski Posted June 12, 2003 Share Posted June 12, 2003 Gun turn rates are what bug me. I don't care how big the gun is, don't try to tell me eight guys couldn't pick one end up and spin the damn thing around in about three seconds if their lives depended on it... And movement rates for guns. Come on. I was at Lowe's the other day. I piled 1,000 pounds of concrete, sand, and gravel on one of their crappy little carts, and pushed it half way across the store to check out. It took about a minute, maybe a minute and a half. That's one guy, not under fire, or even in a hurry. Sure, it was over very "open terrain", but come on...those light guns weigh a fraction of that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow 1st Hussars Posted June 12, 2003 Share Posted June 12, 2003 Originally posted by Malakovski: *SNIP* And movement rates for guns. Come on. I was at Lowe's the other day. I piled 1,000 pounds of concrete, sand, and gravel on one of their crappy little carts, and pushed it half way across the store to check out. It took about a minute, maybe a minute and a half. That's one guy, not under fire, or even in a hurry. Sure, it was over very "open terrain", but come on...those light guns weigh a fraction of that. Try pushing that through non-paved ground. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted June 12, 2003 Share Posted June 12, 2003 Originally posted by CrankyKris: I avoid all but the smallest pivots whenever possible. I think you're better off plotting a few more waypoints in order to approach your desired destination already facing in the desired direction. That is fine but for two things: 1) we are delay-panelized for additional waypoints 2) pivot is executed right away, movement is subject to delay 3) If your first waypoint is a little off the current vehicle axis, you get the same turn. So you always need a gazillion of waypoints if you want to turn by going forward and backwards: - first on exactly on current vehicle axis, far enough to gain some speed - second one is real one changing direction - then you halt at the forward position - and the way back has to go through one waypoint which is directly on the axis of the now standing vehicle - then one waypoint on the way back, specifying the direction the vehicle will face in the end - and the end waypoint directly on axis with the previous one That is for the situation where one single forward-and-back s sufficient for the turn you want. If you need more, then add stuff appropriately. This doesn't strike me as a fun gameplay aspect, nor does the increasing delay penality strike me as relatistic here. The game system should abstract the fastest turn possible, either in place or going back and forth, whatever works for the vehicle. If manually plotting waypoints back and forth is faster than the turn command this abstraction is not done. [ June 12, 2003, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malakovski Posted June 12, 2003 Share Posted June 12, 2003 Originally posted by Shadow 1st Hussars: Try pushing that through non-paved ground. True, the Lowe's cart would not do well, but I believe towed guns had wheels designed for off-roadin', and I'm mainly complaining about small ATGs. I'm nat saying moving a 150mm IG though mud wouldn't be slow...I'm saying three guys could move a 37mm ATG over dry, open terrain pretty damn quick if they had to. So, perhaps here is a better example. Moving the aforemention materials to the building site (yes, I've been doing a bit of home improvement lately). I piled about 150 lbs of material into a wheel barrow with two hard rubber tires and moved it through the "open terrain"/"scattered trees" in my front yard. It was dry, but not particularly flat. I easily did this at walking speed. Give me a couple helpers and it would have been even a bit faster. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 Originally posted by BadgerDog: FYI........ Old thread - Why are tanks turning so slow? </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by flamingknives: Many WWII era tanks could not neutral steer, that is run both tracks in opposite directions. Instead, they braked one track whilst running the other - this slows things down quite a bit. The Tiger (PzKw VI) is notable as being the first that could. Originally posted by Originally posted by BadgerDog: These are good observations. The Sherman (M4A2E8) had no "pivot turn" or as some call it "neutral turn" capability. As a Sherman driver, I'd have to perform a move forward followed by a hard tiller bar action (left or right) to get her to turn. It wasn't a turn in place, but rather an actual turn while moving forward or backward, so there was always a displacement of the position you were in to get the Sherman pointed in a different direction. It was very slow if all the Crew Commander wanted me to do was turn 90 degrees, but stay in the same spot as a fire position. It was a damn pain in the A&& to have to rock forward and backward over at least a minute or more, just to get the bow around. When moving at high speeds and cranking the tiller bar for a hard left or right, it was much faster, but the turn radius was wide and often there was an overshoot, which really ticked off some Crew Commanders because frequently he'd end up in a fire position that wasn't what he wanted. So, he'd have to get the driver to start "jockeying" (see above stationary turn) into the correct facing position. Don't know of this helps, but I do find CMBB's turning code pretty close to real life.Regards, Badger [/QB]</font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbertles Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 Turn rate haiku: Half tracks and Tigers Turning slow as seasons pass Excruciating 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce70 Posted June 25, 2003 Author Share Posted June 25, 2003 Thanks for all the replies. I think this quote by redwolf sums up my feelings: The game system should abstract the fastest turn possible, either in place or going back and forth, whatever works for the vehicle. If manually plotting waypoints back and forth is faster than the turn command this abstraction is not done. Oh, I agree about the guns too, they don't even move very fast on paved roads... downhill! On a gentle downhill slope on a paved road even a moderately heavy gun should move at walking pace. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tar Posted June 25, 2003 Share Posted June 25, 2003 On a gentle downhill slope on a paved road even a moderately heavy gun should move at walking pace Yes, but then we would have to get on BFC's case about how quickly it stops! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted June 25, 2003 Share Posted June 25, 2003 Don't bother stopping. After enough downhill acceleration your PaK40 itself can slam into a tank with 141mm@30 degress penetration 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soddball Posted June 25, 2003 Share Posted June 25, 2003 Try playing against MasterGoodale if you want to know what slow turn rates are all about. :mad: :mad: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce70 Posted June 27, 2003 Author Share Posted June 27, 2003 Originally posted by tar: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> On a gentle downhill slope on a paved road even a moderately heavy gun should move at walking pace Yes, but then we would have to get on BFC's case about how quickly it stops! </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offtaskagain Posted June 27, 2003 Share Posted June 27, 2003 Originally posted by Bruce70: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tar: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> On a gentle downhill slope on a paved road even a moderately heavy gun should move at walking pace Yes, but then we would have to get on BFC's case about how quickly it stops! </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted June 27, 2003 Share Posted June 27, 2003 i imagine a couple of guys standing on the tow bars would slow it down if it needed it. what gets me is the infantry turn rate. i can kind of understand the platoon moving to different cover to meet a different thread but i can't see that taking nearly as long as it does in the game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted June 27, 2003 Share Posted June 27, 2003 i agree with Other Means. {ok it was a double post. GAAAAH.} [ June 27, 2003, 06:48 AM: Message edited by: Other Means ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce70 Posted June 30, 2003 Author Share Posted June 30, 2003 I don't mind it taking that long if they (infantry) are going to move but they should be able to fire in any direction. The firepower should be reduced if firing to the flanks and possibly the rear but they should still be able to do something. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.